“Is it not also clear that by knowing themselves people experience the most good things, and by being deceived about themselves they suffer the most evils?” This question, posed by Socrates, cuts to the heart of both ancient Greek philosophy and early Buddhism. What does it mean to know oneself, and is there even a self to know? In Love with Wisdom invites readers into a cross-cultural dialogue between these two classical traditions, tied together by their shared commitment to inquiry and ethical living.
In this unique collaboration, classicist Alexandra Pappas and venerable scholar-monk Bhikkhu Anālayo open a new contemplative path by exploring how timeless Buddhist teachings echo—often strikingly—in the earliest voices of Western philosophy. Beginning with the thoughts of Heraclitus, Parmenides, Empedocles, and Socrates, Alexandra Pappas examines their ideas on impermanence, selfhood, the four elements, ethical living, and rebirth. Bhikkhu Anālayo then takes up these same ideas through the lens of early Buddhism, revealing parallels and illuminating contrasts in unexpected places. Rather than focusing on historical influence or cross-cultural borrowing, the authors uncover shared human concerns and distinctive philosophical responses, enriching our understanding of early Buddhist thought by seeing it alongside other ancient explorations in a shared love of wisdom."
I personally have a lot of serious doubts regarding this project, but it will surely stimulate, or, rather, even stir up the discussion!
I thought you’d be thrilled about a comparative study of Greek Philosophy and Buddhism?
I was just thinking Greek schools’ idea of dogma, in the sense of accepting certain ideas wholesale not necessarily for their truth-value, but for the intended results they would bring.
Compare that to the Buddha saying “If you think this way, it leads to unskillful, if you think that way, it leads to skillful.” and so on, similarly being utilitarian with views for their pedagogical effects, rather than necessarily for their truth.
Let’s see if Venerable has explored anything similar.
Yes, this is certainly very interesting for me, but 1) comparing pre-Socratic theoreticians about the world with non- and anti-theoretical early Buddhism seems not right, 2) As far as I know, Ven. doesn’t know Greek and Latin, so, strictly speaking he doesn’t have access to what he wants to compare with, 3) I have read some (small) parts of the book before, and found out that Ven. basically “telling his story” – his established discourse about early Buddhism is compared to early Greek philosophy through the English keywords (“impermanence”, etc.), 4) Ven. is not very good at philosophy in general…
All my IMHO, of course.
I was just thinking Greek schools’ idea of dogma, in the sense of accepting certain ideas wholesale not necessarily for their truth-value, but for the intended results they would bring.
Compare that to the Buddha saying “If you think this way, it leads to unskillful, if you think that way, it leads to skillful.” and so on, similarly being utilitarian with views for their pedagogical effects, rather than necessarily for their truth.
Sure, there is a lot to compare. Dogmas come a bit later than what is in focus in Anālayo-Pappas book – in Hellenistic philosophy. I gave a talk recently, where I exactly compared the core principles of early Buddhism (anattan, three jewels, three characteristics, four noble truths, etc.) to Hellenistic dogmas.
Let’s see if Venerable has explored anything similar.
I’m equipped to do this but somewhat reluctant insofar as I’m trying to avoid useless disappointment. Might give it a gander if it could be of interest to others.
My paper will eventually be published, but it might take a while. I can send you my materials privately. The video is not available, unfortunately. I am not aware of any other such comparisons.
It’d be nice to see a proper critical review of the book. But alas, such seems to be rare these days.
